Just something to read if you are bored.

Could something be done to save boxing? These are one of the many questions raised about this sport.There are far too many champions in a single weight class and just when you think it couldn't be complicated enough we get into an even more confusing debacle with what happened last night in boxing ( Gamboa and Salido ). When Max Kellerman said last night the super champion and a champion and winner becomes a super duper champion. It just got me thinking and shooting the shit with friends and family over the past few years over many ounces or pints of beer. Bare with me. If UFC and pride fighting now known as K-1 or Dream I believe can basically be the AFC and NFC of MMA. Why couldn't boxing do the same thing? So here we have come up with the solutions to save boxing.

Get the government involved and get this sport back to the way it was. There are far too many champions with each weight classes, too many shady dealings with promoter's , judges, referee's,etc.

All Champions of there respective weight classes will be known as World ----Weight Champion.
All champions are to fight within three months of there last defense. Unless serious injury, death in the family or legitimate excuse ( Not Money or back Spasms ) all potential problems will be under advisement . Or you will be stripped of your title. You will be able to get another title shot after you defeat the top ranked #1 or #2 spot.
At least 3 championship fight's will be televised free (ABC or NBC) and on the same night in the same venue.

No more ten point must system if you knock a fighter down three times in a round Congradulations you've won the round not by an insane scoring of 10-6 which means the fallen fighter would have to win the next three rounds to tie it back up but a single point to know you've won the round.The agressor takes the round no matter what. So no more BS dancing and playing to the crowd. You want to win show us you want to win not by how flashy your punches are and amatuer flailing. Lowblows,rabbit,kidney punches,headbutts,elbows,forearms,open palms are still in force only as the ref sees it he can take a point or two for deliberate blows. Like last night Gamboa and Salido in the twelfth round Gamboa hit's Salido while he was on the canvas immediate DISQUALIFACATION. See Dirrell and Abraham or Jones Jr and Griffin. Championship fight's will go fifteen rounds.All others ten rounds. Beginning of career 15 bouts or less you have a choice to fight 5 rounds or ten rounds. After 15 bouts you will have to fight 10 rounds.

Questions about purses ? You are a government entertainer and you will be paid according to whatever the public deems you worthy of and simply how much money we can generate from your name. If you retire you will have a 401K,social security,and yes you will get a severance package when you leave.Yes you may have holiday pay and sick time as well. If you have shitty credit and can't buy a house one will be provided for you in the neighborhood of your choosing again a house in how much you are deemed worthy of. but hey it's free. ( Alright this is usually the end of the conversation and many brews later )

This is the twenty first century so yes instant replay is in effect and there are 3 other judges to look at the foul in question at the rest period.

This is the World Boxing League.

Can I call you Dana Black?

The one thing that really annoys me with Boxing is the fact that the best fights are on PPV. That's it. I'm not arsed about paper champions, i'm not arsed that it doesn't only have 1 champion like UFC, and i'm not arsed that marketable fighters generally don't compete in any evenly matched fights until they reach the top of their level.

None of that bothers me because the sport continues to throw up top quality and entertaining fights. It's just a bit shit that you have to pay extra to watch them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

Can I call you Dana Black?

---

As long as it's the Dana Black of boxing.

A lot of your ideas are silly. Get rid of pay per view have one belt per division. that's it.

Yeah got to agree with piye that doesn't sound like government regulation, but more like some crazy government ran stalinist factory or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piye

A lot of your ideas are silly. Get rid of pay per view have one belt per division. that's it.

---

naa one belt per division is a daft idea

I'm a strong believer in the single international governing body to control professional boxing.
Right now there are too many different sets of rules.

There should be one set of rules from one commission that govern the following events.
1. Prohibited and allowed substances.
2. Weigh-in procedures
3. Rankings
4. One world champion per division
5. Suspension enforcement

I have no problem with regional titles and I feel they add a stepping stone to international competition (or at least they should)

As to the specific rules, I don't know if I'd go as far as FightFan, but there is no way to get anything real done in boxing with the ABCs intact.

Many people try to point to the UFC as having the formula by having one belt per division.

But what they fail to realize is that UFC is not MMA as a whole, there are many different MMA organizations and if you think about it they have many belts(MMA as a whole)

What we call alphabet Belts in boxing, could be called Organization belts in MMA.

There is a UFC Champion
There is a Strikeforce Champion
There is a DREAM Champion
There is a WEC Champion

Having these multiple Belts is actually a good thing for boxing because if you have one belt per division that's going to make TV contracts difficult, some boxers on HBO will never appear on Showtime and vice versa you'd be having to change contracts per every title defense and if the belt changes hands changing those contracts around too back and forth and back and forth, in the world of contracts its not good for business and if you followed the format one belt one champion and doing it per TV deal you aren't a far cry from having titles named after the TV stations themselves, Could you Imagine a heavyweight being called the "HBO Heavyweight Champion" or the "Showtime heavyweight champion" of the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Many people try to point to the UFC as having the formula by having one belt per division.

But what they fail to realize is that UFC is not MMA as a whole, there are many different MMA organizations and if you think about it they have many belts(MMA as a whole)

What we call alphabet Belts in boxing, could be called Organization belts in MMA.

There is a UFC Champion
There is a Strikeforce Champion
There is a DREAM Champion
There is a WEC Champion

Having these multiple Belts is actually a good thing for boxing because if you have one belt per division that's going to make TV contracts difficult, some boxers on HBO will never appear on Showtime and vice versa you'd be having to change contracts per every title defense and if the belt changes hands changing those contracts around too back and forth and back and forth, in the world of contracts its not good for business and if you followed the format one belt one champion and doing it per TV deal you aren't a far cry from having titles named after the TV stations themselves, Could you Imagine a heavyweight being called the "HBO Heavyweight Champion" or the "Showtime heavyweight champion" of the world?

---

Yes wouldn't want to hurt the TV contracts :rolleyes:

HBO has a majority of title fights in the US and SKY has the majority of title fights in the UK.
The only exception is really the Super Six, what other title fights has Showtime had recently?

I'll give you some time to search boxrec for your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Many people try to point to the UFC as having the formula by having one belt per division.

But what they fail to realize is that UFC is not MMA as a whole, there are many different MMA organizations and if you think about it they have many belts(MMA as a whole)

What we call alphabet Belts in boxing, could be called Organization belts in MMA.

There is a UFC Champion
There is a Strikeforce Champion
There is a DREAM Champion
There is a WEC Champion

Having these multiple Belts is actually a good thing for boxing because if you have one belt per division that's going to make TV contracts difficult, some boxers on HBO will never appear on Showtime and vice versa you'd be having to change contracts per every title defense and if the belt changes hands changing those contracts around too back and forth and back and forth, in the world of contracts its not good for business and if you followed the format one belt one champion and doing it per TV deal you aren't a far cry from having titles named after the TV stations themselves, Could you Imagine a heavyweight being called the "HBO Heavyweight Champion" or the "Showtime heavyweight champion" of the world?

---

Yes wouldn't want to hurt the TV contracts :rolleyes:

HBO has a majority of title fights in the US and SKY has the majority of title fights in the UK.
The only exception is really the Super Six, what other title fights has Showtime had recently?

I'll give you some time to search boxrec for your answer.

---

Way to miss the point of my post completely.

Anyway how can you say 'with the exception of the Super Six what has Showtime had lately?"

Showtime has been having championship fights in the Super Middleweight tournament because to be honest, the Super Six is pretty much gonna be their one major tournament for a while, it's what's gonna take up their Showtime Championship Boxing Schedule for quite a while. So I don't get what you're getting at, you can't really use the Super Six as a way to try to bash Showtime for lack of recent championship fights when that Super Six is basically gonna eb their major thing till it ends. Not to mention that Showtime also has Strikeforce on their Network so they can't commit to just boxing events anymore. The Super Six is tournament is a great way to settle rivalries and 'belts' in a division and make one major champion out of it. The only champion that isn't in it, is Lucien Bute, who is fighting the likes of Edison Miranda on HBO because every other Super Middleweight that really would be a threat is in that Showtime tournament. Showtime is doing what should be done about multiple belts in a division, hold a tournament so that you can have one major champion.

My point I was trying to make was that peopel point to the UFC for having the formula for one champ per division, but went on to explain UFC isnt MMA as a whole, and that in every MMA organization there is a belt for seperate weight classes. So what I'm saying is MMA has alphabet belts as boxing has, the events are just hosted by the organization that also makes them. That was the point I was trying to make.

Now back to one belt per a division.

If there was one belt per division which is the problem I'm addressing and why the multiple belts is actually good for boxing.

With one belt it would make everything a huge cluster to be honest and would get old faster then this multiple belt thing.

You have 4 champions per division right?
The WBA, WBC, the IBF, and the WBO

Each has a set of rankings of who fights who, there are different people ranked differently in each division and some get shots at certain titles. Who is to say the WBC ranked number 1 is better then the WBA ranked number 1(if they aren't the same person) so each gets a shot at their respective titles and becomes "established" thus getting their name out there, in getting their name out there they also create hype for themselves and have something going for them. Another champion in the same division can also make a name for themselves and have some hype behind them, which is what sets up super fights from two established champions that are putting it on the line to fight each other. This captures in essence something that makes boxing so special. When two established champions are fighting each other, it's special in boxing.

Now wipe all that away, make one champion and one set of rankings. What you will have then is only superfights if a champion moves up in weight to fight another champion at a higher weight class. Superfights at the same weight are harder to make because you have only one champion and some people fighting up rankings to get to them with no real chance to get their name out there because they aren't facing really anyone worth note.

People complain about how "mandatory" title defenses can ruin boxing and praise someone for giving up a belt for taking a challenge(against another glorified champ of another organization mind you) and seeing who is the best.

If you have one belt per division you wipe that away. And most fights you get are going to be glorified mandatory title defenses.

And lets say you wipe away all 4 sanctioning bodies and make one, what if 4 different people are ranked 1 in each? How do we decide who fights the champ first? Are we gonna hold a tournament and have them fight each other? In this time who is the champ gonna fight? Or are we gonna have the champ fight one every 3 months till all 4 are done? See all these kinds of conflicts. Given as many boxers there are in the world today working their way up god knows how many rankings, there is simply no way to try to whittle it down to one ranking one belt. You are causing more problems then you are solving and it will get old fast.

Which is why rather then bashing the Super Six and saying Showtime hasn't done much besides it lately, it should be praised for doing exactly what boxing should do about multiple belts, make the champions fight each other.

Hence why one champ per division won't work and is bad for boxing as a whole especially with the way things are now. This isn't the 1900's for a reason. The only really bad thing about multiple belts in a division, is when the champions don't fight each other, example: The Heavyweight division. Perhaps the heavwyeight division is also the best example of the second problem of multiple belts in the division, if you have a champion that holds them all, and they retire leaving all of the belts vacant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Many people try to point to the UFC as having the formula by having one belt per division.

But what they fail to realize is that UFC is not MMA as a whole, there are many different MMA organizations and if you think about it they have many belts(MMA as a whole)

What we call alphabet Belts in boxing, could be called Organization belts in MMA.

There is a UFC Champion
There is a Strikeforce Champion
There is a DREAM Champion
There is a WEC Champion

Having these multiple Belts is actually a good thing for boxing because if you have one belt per division that's going to make TV contracts difficult, some boxers on HBO will never appear on Showtime and vice versa you'd be having to change contracts per every title defense and if the belt changes hands changing those contracts around too back and forth and back and forth, in the world of contracts its not good for business and if you followed the format one belt one champion and doing it per TV deal you aren't a far cry from having titles named after the TV stations themselves, Could you Imagine a heavyweight being called the "HBO Heavyweight Champion" or the "Showtime heavyweight champion" of the world?

---

Yes wouldn't want to hurt the TV contracts :rolleyes:

HBO has a majority of title fights in the US and SKY has the majority of title fights in the UK.
The only exception is really the Super Six, what other title fights has Showtime had recently?

I'll give you some time to search boxrec for your answer.

---

Way to miss the point of my post completely.

Anyway how can you say 'with the exception of the Super Six what has Showtime had lately?"

Showtime has been having championship fights in the Super Middleweight tournament because to be honest, the Super Six is pretty much gonna be their one major tournament for a while, it's what's gonna take up their Showtime Championship Boxing Schedule for quite a while. So I don't get what you're getting at, you can't really use the Super Six as a way to try to bash Showtime for lack of recent championship fights when that Super Six is basically gonna eb their major thing till it ends. Not to mention that Showtime also has Strikeforce on their Network so they can't commit to just boxing events anymore. The Super Six is tournament is a great way to settle rivalries and 'belts' in a division and make one major champion out of it. The only champion that isn't in it, is Lucien Bute, who is fighting the likes of Edison Miranda on HBO because every other Super Middleweight that really would be a threat is in that Showtime tournament. Showtime is doing what should be done about multiple belts in a division, hold a tournament so that you can have one major champion.

My point I was trying to make was that peopel point to the UFC for having the formula for one champ per division, but went on to explain UFC isnt MMA as a whole, and that in every MMA organization there is a belt for seperate weight classes. So what I'm saying is MMA has alphabet belts as boxing has, the events are just hosted by the organization that also makes them. That was the point I was trying to make.

Now back to one belt per a division.

If there was one belt per division which is the problem I'm addressing and why the multiple belts is actually good for boxing.

With one belt it would make everything a huge cluster to be honest and would get old faster then this multiple belt thing.

You have 4 champions per division right?
The WBA, WBC, the IBF, and the WBO

Each has a set of rankings of who fights who, there are different people ranked differently in each division and some get shots at certain titles. Who is to say the WBC ranked number 1 is better then the WBA ranked number 1(if they aren't the same person) so each gets a shot at their respective titles and becomes "established" thus getting their name out there, in getting their name out there they also create hype for themselves and have something going for them. Another champion in the same division can also make a name for themselves and have some hype behind them, which is what sets up super fights from two established champions that are putting it on the line to fight each other. This captures in essence something that makes boxing so special. When two established champions are fighting each other, it's special in boxing.

Now wipe all that away, make one champion and one set of rankings. What you will have then is only superfights if a champion moves up in weight to fight another champion at a higher weight class. Superfights at the same weight are harder to make because you have only one champion and some people fighting up rankings to get to them with no real chance to get their name out there because they aren't facing really anyone worth note.

People complain about how "mandatory" title defenses can ruin boxing and praise someone for giving up a belt for taking a challenge(against another glorified champ of another organization mind you) and seeing who is the best.

If you have one belt per division you wipe that away. And most fights you get are going to be glorified mandatory title defenses.

And lets say you wipe away all 4 sanctioning bodies and make one, what if 4 different people are ranked 1 in each? How do we decide who fights the champ first? Are we gonna hold a tournament and have them fight each other? In this time who is the champ gonna fight? Or are we gonna have the champ fight one every 3 months till all 4 are done? See all these kinds of conflicts. Given as many boxers there are in the world today working their way up god knows how many rankings, there is simply no way to try to whittle it down to one ranking one belt. You are causing more problems then you are solving and it will get old fast.

Which is why rather then bashing the Super Six and saying Showtime hasn't done much besides it lately, it should be praised for doing exactly what boxing should do about multiple belts, make the champions fight each other.

Hence why one champ per division won't work and is bad for boxing as a whole especially with the way things are now. This isn't the 1900's for a reason. The only really bad thing about multiple belts in a division, is when the champions don't fight each other, example: The Heavyweight division.

---

No I got your point, but you are kinda all over the map in your response, in the first breath you defend Showtime's tournament for working to get a one major world champ, and then go on to explain how having one champ is a bad thing.

The most ridiculous thing is where you classify unification fights as Super Fights, the fighter's quality and hype makes super fights. People didn't watch Mayweather vs. ODLH because of the belts, they watched because they are fans of the fighters, show me one person that chooses to watch a fight because of the title that's on the line. The difference between the different organizations in MMA and in Boxing is that one has a majority marketshare, that being the UFC as you said yourself, the casual observer immediately recognizes the UFC as MMA much like Kleenex as tissue.

As for your "only problem being when title holders don't fight each other. That holds true for all weight classes, not just heavyweight. The problem with there being so many titles out there is that it has become deluded to the point of obscenity.
And worse than being a sham, they have different rules (e.g weigh-in procedures)